• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best Pope Ever?

Who is the best Pope ever?


  • Total voters
    31
That's really the problem, if you believe that these teachings were perfect and handed down by an omnipotent and omniscient deity, then they can't change. To change suggests that either the Church was wrong all these years, or that God changed his mind, both of which are very bad for the Church. The fact that he wants to change things presents some serious theological problems for Catholics.

Can no one read? Nowhere did he say that he was changing these doctrines. He said that he would focus less on these things.
 
He's not trying to change doctrine, he's trying to change the church's approach to certain doctrines. That's just as important, if not more important.

He preaches love, justice, compassion... You know, what Jesus taught... and he is saying that the approach that the Chruch takes on these issues should not be devoid of those three things (which is the biggest problem the Chruch has had on the issues).


He's not trying to say Abortion is good or that homosexuality is not a sin, he's saying that only God can judge the people who do these things, and that doing those things is not, in and of themselves, things which will exclude someone from heaven.

Newsflash: that is the Church's doctrine. Jesus taught that stuff. The Church has always said that God is a forgiving God who loves people. If anything, Pope Francis is just reaffirming those doctrines.

Jesus' first word in the Gospel of Mark is repent, so it's not as if Jesus embraces everything. I'm not saying that you're putting forward that proposition, but many seem to fall for that idea.
 
As a non Catholic, I applaud a Christian religious leader who preaches the same philosophy that Christ preached so many years ago. I think the new Pope is a force for good in the world.

Just my opinion, from the outside looking in.
 
And they shouldn't have changed at all, ever. To change on doctrinal issues, they have to admit they were wrong. I wouldn't be trusting a religious organization that thinks their beliefs are handed down by God that's shown to be wrong repeatedly.

I think that would have been incredibly counter-productive to not change at all, doctrine or emphasis. I know I approach this from a different lens, but even if they have changed their views or emphasis on those views, as any prudent organization should consider doing from time to time, it still provides moral order to the world, your atheism notwithstanding.
 
As a non Catholic, I applaud a Christian religious leader who preaches the same philosophy that Christ preached so many years ago. I think the new Pope is a force for good in the world.

Just my opinion, from the outside looking in.

As a non-Catholic, can you tell me what exactly the philosophy of Christ is? Because you seem to think he permits everything.
 
Right. What's the purpose of religion if it changes according to which direction the wind blows?

He's essentially saying that his religion/belief system is a sham and that he willfully participated in said sham for decades.

If a particular religious belief is deemed to be the absolute truth, then it shouldn't change. Especially for current trends and popular opinion.

Christianity, those break-off Jewish sects, would have been dead in the water had it not changed. You wouldn't have had it established in the Roman empire, you wouldn't have had it spread to Anglo-Saxon territories, and so forth. It would just be dead. Dead. If you don't change it, you have a theological victory. Congratulations. However, it would be a hollow victory, because no one would give a damn.
 
Christianity, those break-off Jewish sects, would have been dead in the water had it not changed. You wouldn't have had it established in the Roman empire, you wouldn't have had it spread to Anglo-Saxon territories, and so forth. It would just be dead. Dead. If you don't change it, you have a theological victory. Congratulations. However, it would be a hollow victory, because no one would give a damn.

What has Christianity changed, if you mind me asking? Changing the Mass from Greek to Latin? Please, do explain.
 
The Obama of popes. By failing to rise to the task of providing rock solid, unwavering confirmation and celebration of Catholic traditions, values and core beliefs, Francis will soon become the pop culture, MSM favorite Pope. The pope of appeasement rather than core beliefs. At a time when Catholics worldwide need strong, unwavering leadership and direction, Francis is thus far failing badly. One can only pray that the impossible happens and Francis becomes a pope of worldwide statue to lead the Church as the church that is so desperately needed in today's world.
 
Last edited:
What has Christianity changed, if you mind me asking? Changing the Mass from Greek to Latin? Please, do explain.

For instance, within the incorporation of local traditions that did not mesh well with Church doctrine, Pope Gregory I responded by saying:

"For in these days the Church corrects some things strictly, and allows others out of leniency; others again she deliberately glosses over and tolerates and by so doing often succeeds in checking an evil of which she disapproves. But all who comes to the Faith are to be warned against doing these things, and should any subsequently be guilty of them, they are to be forbidden to receive the Communion of the Blood of our Lord. For while these offenses may to some extent be condoned in those who acted in ignorance, they must be severely punished in those who presume to sin knowingly." Furthermore, he asked that they not destroy the Briton's heathenish temples, as was expected, but convert them instead.
 
The Obama of popes. By failing to rise to the task of providing rock solid, unwavering confirmation and celebration of Catholic traditions, values and core beliefs, Francis will soon become the pop culture, MSM favorite Pope. The pope of appeasement rather than core beliefs. At a time when Catholics worldwide need strong, unwavering leadership and direction, Francis is thus far failing badly. One can only pray that the impossible happens and Francis becomes a pope of worldwide statue to lead the Church as the church.

At very best he is giving the media fodder to portray him as an extreme-liberal. I don't like it and I wish that he would quit with the impromptu remarks. They've caused nothing but confusion.
 
For instance, within the incorporation of local traditions that did not mesh well with Church doctrine, Pope Gregory responded by saying:

"For in these days the Church corrects some things strictly, and allows others out of leniency; others again she deliberately glosses over and tolerates and by so doing often succeeds in checking an evil of which she disapproves. But all who comes to the Faith are to be warned against doing these things, and should any subsequently be guilty of them, they are to be forbidden to receive the Communion of the Blood of our Lord. For while these offenses may to some extent be condoned in those who acted in ignorance, they must be severely punished in those who presume to sin knowingly." Furthermore, he asked that they not destroy the Briton's heathenish temples, as was expected, but convert them instead.

So from what I see, Pope Gregory says that there are different degrees of evil. Nothing new there. Furthermore, he says that those exceedingly evil acts should be punished.

For a modern example, let's look at the Mass and reception of Communion. Compare those who dance at Mass (forbidden) and those who engage in homosexual acts (also forbidden). One is expressly forbidden from receiving Communion, while the other would be welcome to Communion. I don't see anything new or changing here.
 
So from what I see, Pope Gregory says that there are different degrees of evil. Nothing new there. Furthermore, he says that those exceedingly evil acts should be punished.

For a modern example, let's look at the Mass and reception of Communion. Compare those who dance at Mass (forbidden) and those who engage in homosexual acts (also forbidden). One is expressly forbidden from receiving Communion, while the other would be welcome to Communion. I don't see anything new or changing here.

Correct, but he asked that the normal actions of the Church be paused or changed in order to bring in a new flock. Sacrifice of cattle was to be permitted along with others.
 
Correct, but he asked that the normal actions of the Church be paused or changed in order to bring in a new flock. Sacrifice of cattle was to be permitted along with others.

Rites are adapted to local cultures. For example, there are plenty of things that are allowed at Mass in Africa that are expressly forbidden at Mass in Europe, but this is due to differences in the way that cultures perceive things.

But what we are talking about are disciplines. These are things that can change. For example, priests being celibate is a discipline. Eastern Churches do not require this. The doctrine of only allowing male priests, however, cannot change. That is doctrine.

Doctrines cannot change, disciplines can.
 
As a non-Catholic, can you tell me what exactly the philosophy of Christ is? Because you seem to think he permits everything.

Well, you could start with "love thy neighbor as thyself." He didn't say, "but only if they are straight and have the same beliefs that you do."

Then there is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." He didn't say, "unless, of course, they are different from you."

Then there is "Inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of these..." He didn't add, "but the damn freeloaders need some tough love from time to time."

I suppose we could start there.
 
I'm not sure that this is so. I will admit that I haven't been keeping up and that I haven't read the interview published by the Jesuits that is exciting so many, so I don't know. But I did wake up to find a couple of e-mails from a Catholic friend, and here's one article he linked that explains how the media are getting it wrong: The media are getting Pope Francis wrong, again
Can't say I'm surprised that the media lied. Thanks for the link.
 
Hebrews 13:8

King James Version (KJV)


8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

If something was wrong yesterday, then what makes it right today?
 
Well, you could start with "love thy neighbor as thyself." He didn't say, "but only if they are straight and have the same beliefs that you do."

Then there is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." He didn't say, "unless, of course, they are different from you."

Then there is "Inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of these..." He didn't add, "but the damn freeloaders need some tough love from time to time."

I suppose we could start there.

Remember what he said to the adulteress: "Go, and now sin no more." He never said that what you are doing is just fine and continue on. Not at all. In the same way, the Church does not say to do evil unto evildoers or judge them. However, the Church is not going to say that what they are doing is just fine. There is a moral law, and the Church has the job of teaching it to the world.
 
Well, you could start with "love thy neighbor as thyself." He didn't say, "but only if they are straight and have the same beliefs that you do."

Then there is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." He didn't say, "unless, of course, they are different from you."

Then there is "Inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of these..." He didn't add, "but the damn freeloaders need some tough love from time to time."

I suppose we could start there.

Actually He said, 'the poor will be with us always.'

He also said, 'go thy way and sin no more.'

Reality is that people no longer want to hear what they need to hear. They want to hear what they want to hear. Too bad the church is no longer willing to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ who said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.
 
I think that would have been incredibly counter-productive to not change at all, doctrine or emphasis. I know I approach this from a different lens, but even if they have changed their views or emphasis on those views, as any prudent organization should consider doing from time to time, it still provides moral order to the world, your atheism notwithstanding.

Well, if you think covering for pedophile priests and promoting the transmission of AIDS in Africa is moral order, I guess...
 
Well, if you think covering for pedophile priests and promoting the transmission of AIDS in Africa is moral order, I guess...

If the church embraces homosexuality, then it will only be half as bad when the priests go after the little boys. HOHOHO.
 
Actually He said, 'the poor will be with us always.'

He also said, 'go thy way and sin no more.'

Reality is that people no longer want to hear what they need to hear. They want to hear what they want to hear. Too bad the church is no longer willing to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ who said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.

All the pope said was that you shouldn't harass gays anymore. How is that "no longer willing to uphold the teachings of christ". Did christ ever say "Thou shalt have thine government deny rights to sinners that you readily enjoy!"?
 
And if the church embraces space aliens, what will the church do when it finds out they have their own pope?
 
Actually He said, 'the poor will be with us always.'

He also said, 'go thy way and sin no more.'

Reality is that people no longer want to hear what they need to hear. They want to hear what they want to hear. Too bad the church is no longer willing to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ who said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.

"eunuchs from birth"? How are we to interpret that phrase?

"the poor will be with you always, but I am only here for a little while". Yes, that's true, and the poor are still with us, and no doubt always will be. Living in luxury while ignoring the poor was not what Christ was all about, and the new Pope seems to be not only making mouth noises about it, but also being an example.

Go thy way and sin no more. That must have come to a surprise to people who thought that judging and then carrying out a punishment was the best course of action.
 
Rites are adapted to local cultures. For example, there are plenty of things that are allowed at Mass in Africa that are expressly forbidden at Mass in Europe, but this is due to differences in the way that cultures perceive things.

But what we are talking about are disciplines. These are things that can change. For example, priests being celibate is a discipline. Eastern Churches do not require this. The doctrine of only allowing male priests, however, cannot change. That is doctrine.

Doctrines cannot change, disciplines can.

I am not attempting to argue that practice is entirely the same as doctrine, though there are implications abound. Would the establishment of a church doctrine at a much later period suffice for the doctrinal change?
 
Well, if you think covering for pedophile priests and promoting the transmission of AIDS in Africa is moral order, I guess...

Nope, I do not. Would I suppose you uphold hedonism?
 
Back
Top Bottom